04/30/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ . Ms., Franklin:~suggeste'd', the_ i~s~e' be ./Eel'erred' tothe'R~annini' CommiE?sion and the Transportation Planning Committee, and asked review of the _ ' contract with the State for pO?,pible renegotiation of possible alterna'-< ti ves. Others felt closl1,re of~t;he 'ramps': would isolai:,~j;he neighbor.hood adjacent to the ext'ension;'traffic, would have to cross the railroad traeks to reach the River Road area and would be more hazardous than use of the ramps; more through streets would be created; traffic delays; businesses.~_in the neighborhood would suffer financially; transfer of traffic from Whiteaker neighborhood through other neighborhoods; con~ gestion caused by transfer of 1st Avenue traffic to 6th,7th, and Blair Boulevard to River Road; no consideration of ' impact on public transportation; an, updated ESATS plan would be essential to any decision with respect to overall transportation planning for the area bus service to the Whiteaker neighborhoodw_ould~: p~ ,c'lir!;ailed;' pro- jections on which ramp Q,losl1re based may not be vali,d; further detailed study needed with input from the community itself; uncertainty of whether the Roosevelt Freeway'will actually be constructed; adverse effect on Skinners Butte Park because of added,traffic moving,in that direction; effect on dOwntown area. Mr. Warner suggested installation of an automatic gate to bar traffic from entering the freeway from the ramps during traffic hours. Mr. Livingston suggested retention of the ramps with barriers to prevent their use while future of the area is 'being decided and negotiations are carried forward for their permanent use. Mr. Herbert suggested temporary use of the ramps with temporary traffic controls and delay of opening the extension until Federal approval of altern a- tives is received. Those opposed to closure of the ramps generally favored Alternative 2 H proposed in the Highway Department report for handling of traffic onto the'freeway from 1st Avenue . And some felt the closure a gimmick to ensure construction ',of Highway 126 in this area. Public 'hearing was' clo'sed and Mr. Royer responded to questions raised. He said there is no question about having to obtain approval from the Secretary of Transportation on any change in design. And the State's legal counsel had' advised that under the City's recent Charter , amendrn,ent voter approval would be required if any' new agreement is needed. Environmental impact ,statement is needed if ther-e is substantial change in impa~t on adjac~nt neighborhoods. He added that the ESATS plan, devel6ped locally and implemented as'money becomes available, is the only basis for State highway work although not yet adopted by the City Council. It has been pointed out a number of times,that update of t;l1'a:t'::-f5f$3:n.should~ be accomplished to in'clude consideration of other valuei irt the planning process.' Mr. Royer asked that the hazardous condition not be underestimated if use of the ramps is continued. They were not designed for merging traffic into tpe freeway. He explained in response to claim that sight distance illustration in the Highway: ,-',_, report was distorted, the method of, calculation'and the safety standards for measur~~g.:> sight distanc e in proj ect., designs . ' Manager referred'to testimony which appeared to indicate that Highway 126 alignment as shown' in' the report Was 'the final alignment'. It is recognized that the alignment as shown is'questionable and considerable more study will be necessary before the 'final alignment is determined, therefore a'ssumption that Highway 126, will be in this loca'tion ifi t is constructed is perhaps faulty. Councilman Murray wondered' why the' proposed Roosevelt Freeway and the ESATS plan were used to jUstify removal of the ramps. He thought tl:18 cost of widening the ramps to better accommodate mergingtE'affic might be considered in a different light, when looking a~t ,th~ cost of'the overall project, construction-:.of Roosevelt Freeway, or for improvements to 6th, 7th, and Blair'if 'the ramps closed. Mr. Royer::answered that ESATS is' the onlY' trah'sportat,i:on' plan wh~ch has been developed' and before it is rejected, other alternatives should be studied'indepth. There has been no direction from the City on changes desired or alterna- tives. Public Works Director added that City/State had previously proposed widening 6th and 7th with the idea that it sh~oi.iTd be completed prior to the extension of 1-105. ,However, because of uncertainties in connection with the downtown renewal project the 6th and 7th improvements were held up. He said'aB estimate of present-day cost of those improve- ments could be calculated for Council information. ~. . , 2.. 'l. 4/30/73 - 2 '. . .' '~--:'I .'